Self‐determination in the UN era: A response to Peter Sproat
Ravi Mahalingam
Abstract
Ravi Mahalingam
Abstract
This article argues that self‐determination in the UN era is a multi‐faceted concept that seeks to promote civic nationalism within states while preserving territorial integrity and sovereignty rights. To this end, the UN has expounded an internal and external conception of self‐determination. The internal view is broad and imposes obligations upon states and confers rights on peoples or nations to seek representative governments. The external view of self‐determination refers to a purported right of secession and is narrowly construed in favor of states’ rights. In current international law, no right of secession exists for any nation or people. Therefore, to accuse the UN of encouraging or appeasing ethnic cleansing and favoring a right of secession in international law, as Sproat contends, misinterprets both the UN's view of self‐determination and international practice.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This article argues that self‐determination in the UN era is a multi‐faceted concept that seeks to promote civic nationalism within states while preserving territorial integrity and sovereignty rights. To this end, the UN has expounded an internal and external conception of self‐determination. The internal view is broad and imposes obligations upon states and confers rights on peoples or nations to seek representative governments. The external view of self‐determination refers to a purported right of secession and is narrowly construed in favor of states’ rights. In current international law, no right of secession exists for any nation or people. Therefore, to accuse the UN of encouraging or appeasing ethnic cleansing and favoring a right of secession in international law, as Sproat contends, misinterprets both the UN's view of self‐determination and international practice.
Key concepts: Secession, Self-determination, Sovereignty, Territorial integrity, Nationalism, Political science, Law, International law